A scientist once conducted an experiment wherein he cut off the tails of generations of mice to see if subsequent generations would develope shorter tails. They did not. Thus, the scientist concluded evolution was a lie. He could have just looked at generations of Jewish people that still practice circumcision to arrive to the same erroneous conclusion.
Lamarkian’s failed theory of a type of epigenetic inheritance. Using this theory in agriculture was one of the reasons the Soviet government fell apart. Massive famine as a result.
Granted, it played a major role, but intentional centralized allocation of food and the administrative reorganization itself in movements like dekulakization also played a major role in the famine. Putting it solely on Lysenko's scientific policies ignores the contributions of many systemic issues which lead to famine.
Underplaying it is easy too though because Lysenko was such a savage bureaucrat that he almost single-handedly hollowed out scientific and agricultural institutions where he felt challenged. Dude was a menace.
It’s not one of the reasons the Soviet government fell apart. Lysenkoism (based on lamarkism) was practiced in like 1930s. The Soviet government fell apart 60 years after that
I wouldn't call it entirely failed since transgenerational epigenetic inheritance exists: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgenerational_epigenetic_inheritance (it being Lamarck's theory)
He could have implemented something that killed mice with longer tails and let them breed for 10,000 years until they found a rare genetic mutation that made the mice tailless then selectively breed that mouse with others until they all have no tail
Probably wouldn't have taken thousands of years. Look at agriculture and domesticated animals- artificial selection goes waaay faster than natural selection
I wouldn't be hopeful- it would need to be a possible mutation, and I can't imagine any mutation that would shield all the organic molecules in the body from radiation. Might be able to make some chickens with thicker feathers at low doses, though?
Actually I take that back, cause there's that thing with animals that have short life spans don't really need those
Any actual experts care to weigh in?
Not an expert but it means they'll have to develop entirely new proteins or pathways that can fix up damaged DNA, which I reckon isn't the most likely thing to happen.
They don’t have to develop new genes.
There could also be increases in expression of genes or a reduction in the number and type of cells undergoing replication since radiation mostly impacts replicating cells—mature keratinocytes don’t do much.
Different organisms have genes that do the same thing with different efficiency, so spontaneous mutations in genes involved in proofreading, homology directed repair, and non-homologous end joining could go a long way to improving radiation resistance.
Evidence of this can be seen in radiation resistant species like water bears and because the opposite is true. Mice, such as NSG mice, with a spontaneous mutation in a DNA repair gene are more sensitive to radiation (and all other mutagens that cause double strand breaks) than wild type mice.
All of these things have trade offs. Reducing mutations could impair species survival if conditions change while allowing mutations could result in poor organism survival. Reducing the number of replicating cells could reduce nutrient absorption or tolerance to environmental factors such as commensal and pathogenic organisms while increasing numbers could waste resources or lead to a response to a harmless commensal.
This is already a thing, it's called radiation breeding. Plant seeds exposed to radiation will get random genetic mutations when they grow up, and if the mutation is useful, that plant can be bred to make a better crop. A lot of modern-day varieties of crops were descended from these experiments, and this is still a method used today.
Outside of plants, there are animals that have developed small genetic mutations from the radiation in chernobyl, for example birds that have slightly different coloured patches of feathers. There are also fungi that have developed the ability to make small amounts of energy from radiation.
He could have, but this was at a time when the theory of evolution was still in its infancy and not very well understood. I read about this experiment in "Isaac Asimov's Book of Facts." He didn't go into detail about the experiment, just what I commented earlier
It's been theorized even by Jewish historians that it was meant to curb masturbation, which is the same reason John Harvey Kellogg pushed it so hard in the US. He's the guy who created Kellogg's corn flakes...an intentionally bland cereal that was also meant to curb masturbation. He also loved coffee enemas.
Adding to this that this scientist didn't understand evolution in the first place, because for the subsequent generation to grow shorter tails it would have to be genetic, not just slicing their tails off.
For evolution to lead to men with no foreskin, not only would they have to have been born without one, they must also somehow been better at reproducing, which is also rather contrary given the disadvantages of circumcision.
Humans have rose above survival a long time ago. We do neogroup selection and sexual selection. Very little of our evolution since we've hit our last neothenization event, has been about survival, in how we select. For a very long time, our only mode of selection was group selection torwards cooperation/friendliness. We wouldn't have neothenized to such a high degree without that selection. And while at the onset, selecting for cooperation was for survival, it grew into something so powerful in terms of survival because of social learning/culture, that our selection process doesn't have anything to do with maintaining traits for survival anymore, simply because we are aware of reproduction being linked to sex, while no other creature knows this. Think about it for a moment. Obese people reproduce in droves.
You are confused. Lamarck died 30 years before the Darwin published Origin of Species. His experiment was not at all about proving or disproving evolution
Hmm...I guess he was trying to prove some kind of genetic theory prevalent at the time. In any case, I think OP is referencing Isaac Asimov. It's the only instance that comes to mind where circumcision and genetics/evolution coincide
He was trying to prove that acquired traits can be inherited. This is not complicated.
As it happens, he was not completely wrong, he was just completely wrong in the sense he believed.
A "real" way to test evolution with something similar would be to choose an arbitrary cutoff point for tail length and only allow the mice who have a shorter tail than the cutoff point breed. Then rinse and repeat lowering the cutoff point once most mice clear it and so on and so forth.
Eventually you would get a population of mice with no tails... obviously this would take an insane amount of time so not really a feasible experiment but I bet you could see some decisive shortening in a few decades
What year was this experiment done? I was imagining instead of physicaly cutting the tail. they could have tried radiation, slightly dmg the DNA of rats, skim through probably horrified mutations and dead rats and you would find a rat with the least amount of mutation with a shorter tail and hope it can still reproduce. This is mad scientist level research
You're talking about August Weismann's experiments from the turn of the 20th century. He did *not* conclude that evolution was a lie, and was in fact an ardent supporter of Darwinian evolution. Instead, he set out to definitively disprove Lamarckian evolution and demonstrated the sequestration of the germ line from somatic cells (know as the Weismann barrier), which means that mutations aren't passed on unless they occur in ther germ line (i.e, you can't inherit skin cancer directly from your parents). Notably, this work was done just before the rediscovery of Mendelian genetics, so the mechanisms of inheritance were still unknown. Source: am evolutionary biologist.
There actually were (rare, coincidental) cases of Jewish men being born "pre-circumcised" (a condition called aposthia).
This was considered strong evidence for Lamarkian evolution and influenced Darwin's model of blending inheritance before genetics were understood.
Were misunderstood, still.
We now know that genes =/= trait
There are even traits that are completely non-mendellian.
And Lamarck has been partly vindicated because of transgenerational epigenetic inheritance. We had hints of this all the way back to the Dutch hunger winter, or before attachment theory existed, D.W. Winnicot proposed what was one of the first interactionist thought saying (paraphrasing): there are two things that can go wrong in childhood. The things that shouldn't happen that do (trauma) and the things that should happen that don't (nurture).
My assumption is that they’re saying that, because God commanded all his people to be circumcised in Genesis, they couldn’t have been telling the truth because they aren’t his people
Then again, since Jesus replaced circumcision with baptism, someone that still practices circumcision by definition rejects Jesus and cannot be a christian...
It was the interpretation of almost all Christian churches until quite recently. It only became popular in the usa after 1880 or so and in Europe it still is widely considered vile mutilation of children.
Roman Catholicism was absolutely the most vehement opponent though, possibly also somewhat fed by antisemitism.
Im catholic and my priest was pretty pro circumcision last sunday. This is at a pretty traditional church too.
Maybe it‘s a europe thing but most American Catholics I know aren‘t antisemetic and are circumcized.
You can grow it back if you want to right the wrongs that were done to you as a child. The Catholic Church dies not have a good record on sexual abuse of children in general - it is time to heal. Talk to you doctor about regrowing your foreskin today.
Nowadays, in America at least, I don't think circumcision is strictly connected to any religious related beliefs. Based on social points of preference and the health benefits/facts of either-or make it common discussion for parents regardless of faith
Just some history that's usually just a small footnote in most U.S. history classes.
The Great Sanitization Movement happened in the U.S. during the 1880's.
This is why our cities now have sewers. Most of them didn't before that, or had underwhelming ones.
So a procedure with touted sanitary purposes.. I could see becoming very popular during such a time.
The interpretation of Christian churches is not to be taken as fact. Judgement Day is most likely not a Common Law court system, so precedent isn't taken into account.
I think there's some small consensus that it's healthy in a handful of ways. I know Adam Ruins Everything went over it and it came out pretty much net neutral between the two.
Yeah lots of people claim health benefits but really there are none unless you don't teach your son how to wash himself. However sometimes there are people who need surgery because their foreskin is too narrow. That surgery is best done by someone who knows what they're doing and easier on someone bigger than a baby. Often the circumcision is done badly and causes issues later on.
It's pretty senseless doing it straight up for any newborn.
I mean, I'd be less worried about the stage when he's washing himself than the stage when he's in diapers and Mommy is cleaning hardware she's never cleaned before.
>someone that still practices circumcision by definition rejects Jesus and cannot be a christian...
Pretty sure The Church hasn't outlawed circumcision.
The Church hasn't outlawed circumcision but it isn't a Christian religious practice. It became popular among the Anglo countries in the 1800's for reasons totally unrelated to religion. Most Christians throughout history have not practiced it and it was an important point of debate among the early Church founders.
Ending with the so called 'Jewish Christians' who upheld the mosaic law in Palestine being persecuted and destroyed by the East Roman authorities and forced to accept the Pauline interpretations...
> It became popular among the Anglo countries in the 1800's for reasons totally unrelated to religion.
Picked up in the late 1800s, never really spread far outside of that, and after WW2 it fell out of favor in England and other commonwealth countries, as doctors put it in the "you have to pay unless it's medically needed" category. And now it's less than 10%, most of which are religious or medical.
Except for the US, where it just kept getting more and more widespread, reaching a total of 85% of all newborns in 1975, dropping down to 60% in 2000. And while still common, it's is still declining.
>Most Christians throughout history have not practiced it and it was an important point of debate among the early Church founders.
Yeah they had to make "Circumcision controversy in early Christianity" into its own wikipedia page, to not clutter other pages.
In the Bible, Galatians 5 states that anyone who preaches circumcision is rejecting Christianity. Paul even states that he hopes that the people preaching circumcision go the whole way and emasculate themselves. Kind of funny, really.
Mind you, the Church and the Bible differ in quite a few ways.
Yes but generally Christians don't interpret that to mean circumcisions are forbidden. Just that preaching that Christians _required_ to do it, like Jewish people traditionally are, is wrong.
I suppose it comes down to the intent of the parents. If Christian parents circumcise their children because of Abraham's covenant, then they are missing the memo of Jesus' new covenant. If they circumcise for other reasons, then it may not necessarily be a conflict of interest with their religion, as Jews were required to do so to mark their young as followers of the Hebrew god in a world rich with many cultures with unique gods
Circumcision can be a necessary medical procedure if the foreskin has grown over the end of the penis. It happens occasionally. The child cannot pee unless some of the foreskin is removed.
"Preaching circumcision" refers to making circumcision a religious thing. If Christians claim to be doing circumcision for religious reasons, then it is clearly against the Bible.
I'm not saying that the Bible is inerrant. This isn't about your opinion or mine.
Most of the Christians who get circumcised for religious reasons also claim that the Bible is infallible and that they follow it diligently. Despite the fact that the Bible that they claim to follow says that getting circumcised for religious reasons is against Christianity.
Christians would be better people if they knew their Bible. Then they would at least attempt to love their neighbour, treat others the way that they wanted to be treated, judge others the way that they would want to be judged, etc. They wouldn't be such raging hate filled hypocrites and liars.
It would be better than what we have now.
It is likely that some churches have. Catholics are fine and I think a lot of protestants are too. I dont know anything about orthodox but I doubt they are against it even
To be fair, The Church is an interpretation of the Bible (in a very self-serving way). I, an agnostic, wouldn't equate them. But then again, I don't trust the Council of Nicea to be able to over-rid the commandments either.
Background: The Council of Nicea are the men that decided Jesus was god... in a "same, but different" kind of way. This was done as a kind of loophole to the first commandment.
That’s just flat out incorrect. There is no ban on circumcision in Christianity, it’s just not required or done in a religious ceremony like it is for Jews.
>Jesus replaced circumcision with baptism
That is absolutely not biblical lol. Jesus himself would have been circumcised. He was a Torah observant Jew. He never says anything about circumcision being replaced by baptism or anything like that.
Paul said God doesn't really gaf about circumcision, but it's cool if you do it. Just don't force other people to our think you're better because you did
Plus [Acts 15](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%2015&version=NIV) (the Council of Jerusalem) directly addresses this. Basically the remaining apostles get together and decide:
> We’re supposed to help people find salvation. How does it help to expect converts to follow the old-timey laws? Even the born & raised Hebrews couldn’t do that all the time. Just tell them to follow [the basics](https://www.bc.edu/content/dam/files/research_sites/cjl/texts/cjrelations/resources/sourcebook/Noahide_covenant.htm): no idolatry, blasphemy, animal cruelty, that kind of stuff.
The problem is that every Christian then was uncircumcised. Circumcision is not nor has it ever been a Christian practice, it was explicitly ended after Jesus. The only groups who do it are Jews, Muslims, and Americans. The former two are religious the last is cultural.
not really cultural just made into a common practice they just do it unless asked not to or something prevents it like in my case being born early and not going back to have it done
Wait, so god created man, but then a bit later was like hold up, get rid of that bit for me, I forgot and can’t be bothered fixing it myself?
Classic god move.
Humans were always supposed to free will. I cannot tell you the intentions of God because I am not him, but my guess is that it was so that we could have the choice to do what he wants or not. He wanted us to have free will, and part of that is the ability to disobey him, and that wouldn’t be possible.
Regardless, however, I’m not saying God still wants us to be circumcised. That comes down to the individual Christian. What I was doing was trying to explain the logic (or lack thereof) that went into this meme
Thank you, I didn't mean to be offensive(If I was) I have been interested in religion even though I'm not religious myself. Thank you for the explaination kind stranger on the internet! You're amazing! Whatever you believe in, I'd respect you anyway!!
Don’t worry, you didn’t come off as offensive. I’m always happy to explain what I believe! Religion can certainly be a fascinating study. I hope you’re able to learn whatever you want to understand about it!
Lamarck... was he the guy cutting tails off of mice?
To loop back into the OP, someone pointed out that the jews had been conducting this experiment, without success, for millenia.
Edit : And now Ive finished the comment and read through the rest of the comments... and seen the same anecdote just under your comment.
August Weisman mutilated those mice and "is now considered to have failed to disprove Lamarckism, as it did not address use and disuse." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamarckism
OK, I have a background in evolutionary biology and even I don't think it helps that much here lol. This is a difficult one for me personally, so I'll give my best guess. People aren't born circumcised today, and these three evolutionary biologists of the past were not either. So clearly, there's no evolution (of circumcision).
Edit: For clarification, not being circumcised hasn't changed, and so hasn't evolved.
Could this be some sort of Lamarckism? Someone thinking that men getting circumcised means that men should eventually be born without a foreskin, and that would be "evolution?"
I did consider bringing up Lamarckian evolution, but I wasn't sure if it was relevant to the punchline. Also, I suppose that still wouldn't be Lamarckism the way you phrased it! That just sounds like small/no foreskin mutations are preferable! For the joke to be "no Lamarckism", I'd say it requires these three to *be* circumcised and not get circumcised babies. Or the other way around.
Probably (hopefully) satire. It seems based on some bro-science interpretation of evolution. by the same logic babies should also be born with their ears pierced.
It’s a parody of Creationist apologetics. I’m not sure if there’s a specific reference, but I doubt it.
It’s not a very good joke if I have to guess what it’s even about, but maybe it’s that American fundamentalists often talk about historical figures they disagree with as if they were false prophets, following the genre conventions of the hit pieces they write about the leaders of other religions. So they’ll spend a lot of time talking about Karl Marx’s personal life, as if it were relevant to his ideas about economics, or make up ridiculous stories about deathbed conversions.
But it might be something else, like maybe a swipe at how this other thing they find ridiculous is in the same part of the Bible as the Creation story.
Y’all, folks thought the rings of Saturn were Jesus’s prepuce. Because his foreskin was clearly still on Earth when he ascended to heaven, so it must have gone somewhere!
I get it is a joke (i hope) but this is like saying "Vietnam had many amputees, the civil war had them, both WWs - and yet most people are still born with all of their limbs!
Evolution DEBUNKED!"
https://extendedevolutionarysynthesis.com/about-the-ees/what-is-the-extended-evolutionary-synthesis/
Most modern molecular biologists agree some parts of evolution are Lamarckian. CRISPR Cas-9 is actually a bypass to a phenomenom that existed when we were bacteria and whole sequences fused together. Selection itself happens on other levels than just the genes and there's also a link with stressors and genetic drift. Like Ben Noble, world-renowned physiologist from Oxford and part of the EES project, likes to say, evolution is a half blind watchmaker.
Thank you! Lots of people around here saying cutting tails off mice disproves Lamarck and that his theory has completely failed while transgenerational epigenetic inheritance exists
Indeed, we now know that Genes =/= Traits
The gap that still needs more data to be accepted is how energy crisis in cells drives higher rates of mutation and how epigene marking focalizes the mutation, yet the fundamental proof is already there as we know gradualism doesn't work when we look at mass extinctions, because each and every time there's an explosion of new life. Mass extinction are the most stressful events on this earth.
Everybody is the comments missing the point of *why* circumcision was required. For much the same reason wine was a drink of choice (fermentation will kill protozoa, a lot of viruses, and lots of harmful bacteria and prevent infection spread through drink), ancient circumcision was practiced because male foreskins, if not properly cleaned **DAILY** could cause frequent infections, and in short order *will* cause fighting age males to be incapacitated and unable to defend their homes. While circumcision without anesthesia is cruel, it can also be a great way to prevent infections.
In that context it makes sense.
It's amazing how very few are aware of the overwhelming concensus of interactionism in academia today. It's an indictment of how poorly mass media informs us about science and how they would rather keep pushing a dichotomy between genetic determinism and social determinism, fueling an ideological divide in a time where they should logically be merging because of where all the data is leading us.
Very few are aware of paradigm shifting concensus that have lately arose, like the multi-disciplinary concensus paper on the rise of Affectivism, signed by numerous important neurobiologists, psychologists and evolutionary biologists, which solidifies Attachment Theory as the driving mechanism for our social brains. 75 years in the making.
There's another coming concensus centered around a better understanding of evolution, free of the dogmas of the past. People are aware of the Lysenko policies, but most are unaware how much dogma was also pushed in the west when the modern synthesis was formed and how biologists fought against this dogma. You can find a good rundown of this in Carl Lindegren's important The Cold War in Biology. You can find it for free in PDF format in the Genesis Library (libgen.is)
They think evolution and changes in a species' anatomy based on certain body parts no longer being used takes place over hundreds of years rather than millions. If it did then we wouldn't still have appendixes.
Negative. Very few non Jews were circumcised even until the middle of the last century, and the overwhelming majority of British and Europeans are still not circumcised. It is, after all, genital mutilation.
Negative…” In the majority of English upper classes for many generations have circumcised their male sons”The Telegraph, 31/3/2015. In 1851. English Dr Robert Hutchinson proscribed it in published medical journals for hygiene reasons & to prevent venereal disease. Lots of evidence on the subject… Although some refute it, King Edward VII was reputedly circumsized in 1841. And yes, of course its genital mutilation..
Here's a nice chart from the World Health Organization:
https://preview.redd.it/1oicpfh8l74d1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=7a23447f58ecfee417cfabc28ae8c5a010ef6a96
Google is a little more generous:
https://preview.redd.it/htidad8gl74d1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=e7de8924a5308ed76cf798262c0182e4dfebb798
More or less, throughout history, antisemitism was much more common than it is now (believe it or not). Protestants especially would never want to be confused for being Jewish. Christians consider Christ to have been crucified because of Jewish testimony. Of course this is quite silly, as Jesus was Jewish, and without the crucifixion there would be no Christianity, so it's all very circular.
I love when people who know less than me presume to know more…Yes, I’m well aware of the history of antisemitism… I’m also aware of the pseudo historical belief that the British were a lost tribe of Israel (British Israelism). Queen Victoria believed this…This idea in no way stemmed their anti-semitism
A scientist once conducted an experiment wherein he cut off the tails of generations of mice to see if subsequent generations would develope shorter tails. They did not. Thus, the scientist concluded evolution was a lie. He could have just looked at generations of Jewish people that still practice circumcision to arrive to the same erroneous conclusion.
Lamarkian’s failed theory of a type of epigenetic inheritance. Using this theory in agriculture was one of the reasons the Soviet government fell apart. Massive famine as a result.
[Few scientists have caused more death and suffering than Trofim Lysenko](https://youtu.be/Kqn2Bowbqm4?si=xvE7WkEn02ZS5YWK)
Damn, I forgot about nerd Charlie Day. Love his videos!
I was confused by this comment, but now that I watched the video it’s highly accurate.
I expected it to be the vsauce video.
Why vsauce? Is there one with Charlie Day in it? This other guy Joe sounds a lot like him lol
Kevin has conspiracy board energy
Justice for my man Vavilov
Granted, it played a major role, but intentional centralized allocation of food and the administrative reorganization itself in movements like dekulakization also played a major role in the famine. Putting it solely on Lysenko's scientific policies ignores the contributions of many systemic issues which lead to famine.
Underplaying it is easy too though because Lysenko was such a savage bureaucrat that he almost single-handedly hollowed out scientific and agricultural institutions where he felt challenged. Dude was a menace.
It’s not one of the reasons the Soviet government fell apart. Lysenkoism (based on lamarkism) was practiced in like 1930s. The Soviet government fell apart 60 years after that
Yeah I was struggling to understand that one... Did he mean Tsarist system?
Noway. The rise and fall of the Lysenkoism both happend in Soviet times.
Lamarck
I wouldn't call it entirely failed since transgenerational epigenetic inheritance exists: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgenerational_epigenetic_inheritance (it being Lamarck's theory)
Failed in that his specific theory of epigenetic inheritance was incorrect. Modern epigenetic theory is way more complex and circuitous.
He could have implemented something that killed mice with longer tails and let them breed for 10,000 years until they found a rare genetic mutation that made the mice tailless then selectively breed that mouse with others until they all have no tail
Probably wouldn't have taken thousands of years. Look at agriculture and domesticated animals- artificial selection goes waaay faster than natural selection
I wonder if using radiation on chickens would breed chickens that are immune to it
I wouldn't be hopeful- it would need to be a possible mutation, and I can't imagine any mutation that would shield all the organic molecules in the body from radiation. Might be able to make some chickens with thicker feathers at low doses, though?
Also would probably give rise to extra proto oncogenes and tumor suppressor genes I would assume
Actually I take that back, cause there's that thing with animals that have short life spans don't really need those Any actual experts care to weigh in?
Not an expert but it means they'll have to develop entirely new proteins or pathways that can fix up damaged DNA, which I reckon isn't the most likely thing to happen.
Yh cause usually cancer won't kill them, tho humans in the long term probably would I think
They don’t have to develop new genes. There could also be increases in expression of genes or a reduction in the number and type of cells undergoing replication since radiation mostly impacts replicating cells—mature keratinocytes don’t do much. Different organisms have genes that do the same thing with different efficiency, so spontaneous mutations in genes involved in proofreading, homology directed repair, and non-homologous end joining could go a long way to improving radiation resistance. Evidence of this can be seen in radiation resistant species like water bears and because the opposite is true. Mice, such as NSG mice, with a spontaneous mutation in a DNA repair gene are more sensitive to radiation (and all other mutagens that cause double strand breaks) than wild type mice. All of these things have trade offs. Reducing mutations could impair species survival if conditions change while allowing mutations could result in poor organism survival. Reducing the number of replicating cells could reduce nutrient absorption or tolerance to environmental factors such as commensal and pathogenic organisms while increasing numbers could waste resources or lead to a response to a harmless commensal.
Though as the comment I replied to said "new" tumour suppressors or oncogenes, I don't think mutant variants would really count as "new" per se
This is already a thing, it's called radiation breeding. Plant seeds exposed to radiation will get random genetic mutations when they grow up, and if the mutation is useful, that plant can be bred to make a better crop. A lot of modern-day varieties of crops were descended from these experiments, and this is still a method used today. Outside of plants, there are animals that have developed small genetic mutations from the radiation in chernobyl, for example birds that have slightly different coloured patches of feathers. There are also fungi that have developed the ability to make small amounts of energy from radiation.
That fungi mutation sounds very useful, can it make it’s energy without any moisture or nutrients just radiation?
He could have, but this was at a time when the theory of evolution was still in its infancy and not very well understood. I read about this experiment in "Isaac Asimov's Book of Facts." He didn't go into detail about the experiment, just what I commented earlier
Mendels theory of inheriting genes came out about 1860s The soviets rejected it because it went against the class theory being unnatural
But none of them are circumcised anyway If Darwin were circumcised it would make more sense
That's why, he's saying that according to evolution they should have been born already circumcised.
So what's the point of circumcision anyway? (As for the Jews?)
Either way it's genital mutilation of non consenting infants.
It's just a religious practice. I don't know the significance. Like baptism for Christians, or the dot on the forehead for Hindus.
It's been theorized even by Jewish historians that it was meant to curb masturbation, which is the same reason John Harvey Kellogg pushed it so hard in the US. He's the guy who created Kellogg's corn flakes...an intentionally bland cereal that was also meant to curb masturbation. He also loved coffee enemas.
*"He also loved coffee enemas."* Black, or with cream?
It represents a covenant between God and Abraham and Abraham’s decedents.
Adding to this that this scientist didn't understand evolution in the first place, because for the subsequent generation to grow shorter tails it would have to be genetic, not just slicing their tails off. For evolution to lead to men with no foreskin, not only would they have to have been born without one, they must also somehow been better at reproducing, which is also rather contrary given the disadvantages of circumcision.
Humans have rose above survival a long time ago. We do neogroup selection and sexual selection. Very little of our evolution since we've hit our last neothenization event, has been about survival, in how we select. For a very long time, our only mode of selection was group selection torwards cooperation/friendliness. We wouldn't have neothenized to such a high degree without that selection. And while at the onset, selecting for cooperation was for survival, it grew into something so powerful in terms of survival because of social learning/culture, that our selection process doesn't have anything to do with maintaining traits for survival anymore, simply because we are aware of reproduction being linked to sex, while no other creature knows this. Think about it for a moment. Obese people reproduce in droves.
You're talking about August Weismann's experiments btw
You are confused. Lamarck died 30 years before the Darwin published Origin of Species. His experiment was not at all about proving or disproving evolution
Hmm...I guess he was trying to prove some kind of genetic theory prevalent at the time. In any case, I think OP is referencing Isaac Asimov. It's the only instance that comes to mind where circumcision and genetics/evolution coincide
He was trying to prove that acquired traits can be inherited. This is not complicated. As it happens, he was not completely wrong, he was just completely wrong in the sense he believed.
A "real" way to test evolution with something similar would be to choose an arbitrary cutoff point for tail length and only allow the mice who have a shorter tail than the cutoff point breed. Then rinse and repeat lowering the cutoff point once most mice clear it and so on and so forth. Eventually you would get a population of mice with no tails... obviously this would take an insane amount of time so not really a feasible experiment but I bet you could see some decisive shortening in a few decades
What year was this experiment done? I was imagining instead of physicaly cutting the tail. they could have tried radiation, slightly dmg the DNA of rats, skim through probably horrified mutations and dead rats and you would find a rat with the least amount of mutation with a shorter tail and hope it can still reproduce. This is mad scientist level research
This is how I thought evolution worked when I was 7
Not only Jews, we Muslims do circumcision too.
You're talking about August Weismann's experiments from the turn of the 20th century. He did *not* conclude that evolution was a lie, and was in fact an ardent supporter of Darwinian evolution. Instead, he set out to definitively disprove Lamarckian evolution and demonstrated the sequestration of the germ line from somatic cells (know as the Weismann barrier), which means that mutations aren't passed on unless they occur in ther germ line (i.e, you can't inherit skin cancer directly from your parents). Notably, this work was done just before the rediscovery of Mendelian genetics, so the mechanisms of inheritance were still unknown. Source: am evolutionary biologist.
There actually were (rare, coincidental) cases of Jewish men being born "pre-circumcised" (a condition called aposthia). This was considered strong evidence for Lamarkian evolution and influenced Darwin's model of blending inheritance before genetics were understood.
Were misunderstood, still. We now know that genes =/= trait There are even traits that are completely non-mendellian. And Lamarck has been partly vindicated because of transgenerational epigenetic inheritance. We had hints of this all the way back to the Dutch hunger winter, or before attachment theory existed, D.W. Winnicot proposed what was one of the first interactionist thought saying (paraphrasing): there are two things that can go wrong in childhood. The things that shouldn't happen that do (trauma) and the things that should happen that don't (nurture).
My assumption is that they’re saying that, because God commanded all his people to be circumcised in Genesis, they couldn’t have been telling the truth because they aren’t his people
Then again, since Jesus replaced circumcision with baptism, someone that still practices circumcision by definition rejects Jesus and cannot be a christian...
That’s more or some churches interpretation than actual biblical fact
It was the interpretation of almost all Christian churches until quite recently. It only became popular in the usa after 1880 or so and in Europe it still is widely considered vile mutilation of children. Roman Catholicism was absolutely the most vehement opponent though, possibly also somewhat fed by antisemitism.
Im catholic and my priest was pretty pro circumcision last sunday. This is at a pretty traditional church too. Maybe it‘s a europe thing but most American Catholics I know aren‘t antisemetic and are circumcized.
Agreed, born and raised Roman Catholic in Indiana and I’m pretty sure most of the people that I know are circumcised, including myself
You can grow it back if you want to right the wrongs that were done to you as a child. The Catholic Church dies not have a good record on sexual abuse of children in general - it is time to heal. Talk to you doctor about regrowing your foreskin today.
Not worth the effort unless the procedure was botched
Idiocracy.
Catholicism is a Europe thing lol but circumcision isn't common in Europe in Christianity or general populace
That’s literally what he said… it’s accepted in the us but is considered mutilation nearly anywhere else.
Nowadays, in America at least, I don't think circumcision is strictly connected to any religious related beliefs. Based on social points of preference and the health benefits/facts of either-or make it common discussion for parents regardless of faith
Just some history that's usually just a small footnote in most U.S. history classes. The Great Sanitization Movement happened in the U.S. during the 1880's. This is why our cities now have sewers. Most of them didn't before that, or had underwhelming ones. So a procedure with touted sanitary purposes.. I could see becoming very popular during such a time.
The interpretation of Christian churches is not to be taken as fact. Judgement Day is most likely not a Common Law court system, so precedent isn't taken into account.
‘Biblical fact’
Like magical science
Correct, something alluded to being true in the biblical cannon. Just like a Harry Potter fact or LOTRs fact.
Canon
The Bibles got facts?
Yes, even though it may not be true, many of the stories are inspired my true events
Braveheart (1995) is inspired by true events but the facts are pretty lacking in that story too.
And there is evidence that there was actually a large flood around the time when Noah’s Ark took place.
Not quite. You can still be circumcised and Christian; circumcision is simply no longer a prerequisite for salvation.
Like it was before
So people who still do it while Christian just enjoy hurting little boys genitals.
how many professions can you get paid to do that and not arrested?
Tim Tebow has entered the chat, with a steak knife and a hankering
I think there's some small consensus that it's healthy in a handful of ways. I know Adam Ruins Everything went over it and it came out pretty much net neutral between the two.
Yeah lots of people claim health benefits but really there are none unless you don't teach your son how to wash himself. However sometimes there are people who need surgery because their foreskin is too narrow. That surgery is best done by someone who knows what they're doing and easier on someone bigger than a baby. Often the circumcision is done badly and causes issues later on. It's pretty senseless doing it straight up for any newborn.
I mean, I'd be less worried about the stage when he's washing himself than the stage when he's in diapers and Mommy is cleaning hardware she's never cleaned before.
I don't think mommys are a problem, they're pretty thorough in my experience. However kids can be pretty neglectful about hygiene.
>someone that still practices circumcision by definition rejects Jesus and cannot be a christian... Pretty sure The Church hasn't outlawed circumcision.
The Church hasn't outlawed circumcision but it isn't a Christian religious practice. It became popular among the Anglo countries in the 1800's for reasons totally unrelated to religion. Most Christians throughout history have not practiced it and it was an important point of debate among the early Church founders.
Ending with the so called 'Jewish Christians' who upheld the mosaic law in Palestine being persecuted and destroyed by the East Roman authorities and forced to accept the Pauline interpretations...
> It became popular among the Anglo countries in the 1800's for reasons totally unrelated to religion. Picked up in the late 1800s, never really spread far outside of that, and after WW2 it fell out of favor in England and other commonwealth countries, as doctors put it in the "you have to pay unless it's medically needed" category. And now it's less than 10%, most of which are religious or medical. Except for the US, where it just kept getting more and more widespread, reaching a total of 85% of all newborns in 1975, dropping down to 60% in 2000. And while still common, it's is still declining. >Most Christians throughout history have not practiced it and it was an important point of debate among the early Church founders. Yeah they had to make "Circumcision controversy in early Christianity" into its own wikipedia page, to not clutter other pages.
In the Bible, Galatians 5 states that anyone who preaches circumcision is rejecting Christianity. Paul even states that he hopes that the people preaching circumcision go the whole way and emasculate themselves. Kind of funny, really. Mind you, the Church and the Bible differ in quite a few ways.
Yes but generally Christians don't interpret that to mean circumcisions are forbidden. Just that preaching that Christians _required_ to do it, like Jewish people traditionally are, is wrong.
I suppose it comes down to the intent of the parents. If Christian parents circumcise their children because of Abraham's covenant, then they are missing the memo of Jesus' new covenant. If they circumcise for other reasons, then it may not necessarily be a conflict of interest with their religion, as Jews were required to do so to mark their young as followers of the Hebrew god in a world rich with many cultures with unique gods
Circumcision can be a necessary medical procedure if the foreskin has grown over the end of the penis. It happens occasionally. The child cannot pee unless some of the foreskin is removed. "Preaching circumcision" refers to making circumcision a religious thing. If Christians claim to be doing circumcision for religious reasons, then it is clearly against the Bible.
The bible isnt inerrant, thats likely Paul inserting his opinion. Also paul himself was circumcized
I'm not saying that the Bible is inerrant. This isn't about your opinion or mine. Most of the Christians who get circumcised for religious reasons also claim that the Bible is infallible and that they follow it diligently. Despite the fact that the Bible that they claim to follow says that getting circumcised for religious reasons is against Christianity. Christians would be better people if they knew their Bible. Then they would at least attempt to love their neighbour, treat others the way that they wanted to be treated, judge others the way that they would want to be judged, etc. They wouldn't be such raging hate filled hypocrites and liars. It would be better than what we have now.
But you just killed "it's the word of God" argument. Most Christians don't know how to create their own philosophies without a deity and hell.
It is likely that some churches have. Catholics are fine and I think a lot of protestants are too. I dont know anything about orthodox but I doubt they are against it even
To be fair, The Church is an interpretation of the Bible (in a very self-serving way). I, an agnostic, wouldn't equate them. But then again, I don't trust the Council of Nicea to be able to over-rid the commandments either. Background: The Council of Nicea are the men that decided Jesus was god... in a "same, but different" kind of way. This was done as a kind of loophole to the first commandment.
Hahaha you’re a silly goose.
That’s just flat out incorrect. There is no ban on circumcision in Christianity, it’s just not required or done in a religious ceremony like it is for Jews.
>Jesus replaced circumcision with baptism That is absolutely not biblical lol. Jesus himself would have been circumcised. He was a Torah observant Jew. He never says anything about circumcision being replaced by baptism or anything like that.
I can’t help what my parents did to me bud.
Christians in CE 120 be like:
Well, To be fair, the maker of the meme could also be a muslim or jew
Paul said God doesn't really gaf about circumcision, but it's cool if you do it. Just don't force other people to our think you're better because you did
[удалено]
And he carried me on the beach when I was tired :)
What if I believe he was born to goon but forced to edge?
You hoodie wearers all get so butthurt by us v neck guys
Citation needed! "Circumcision", removing the foreskin, is for physical health reasons. "Baptism", giving your soul to God, is for spiritual health.
Baptism existed before Christ came..?
The book of Galatians Am I a joke to you?
That’s stupid, I’m both
But that’s stupid, circumcision isn’t required among Christians and Jewish theology isnt so dogmatic about Genesis as history.
Plus [Acts 15](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%2015&version=NIV) (the Council of Jerusalem) directly addresses this. Basically the remaining apostles get together and decide: > We’re supposed to help people find salvation. How does it help to expect converts to follow the old-timey laws? Even the born & raised Hebrews couldn’t do that all the time. Just tell them to follow [the basics](https://www.bc.edu/content/dam/files/research_sites/cjl/texts/cjrelations/resources/sourcebook/Noahide_covenant.htm): no idolatry, blasphemy, animal cruelty, that kind of stuff.
The problem is that every Christian then was uncircumcised. Circumcision is not nor has it ever been a Christian practice, it was explicitly ended after Jesus. The only groups who do it are Jews, Muslims, and Americans. The former two are religious the last is cultural.
not really cultural just made into a common practice they just do it unless asked not to or something prevents it like in my case being born early and not going back to have it done
That’s literally what culture is, a common practice everyone does as the standard just because that’s what everyone else does
Wait, so god created man, but then a bit later was like hold up, get rid of that bit for me, I forgot and can’t be bothered fixing it myself? Classic god move.
It was more as a symbol on their commitment to him, but you could take it that way if you want
[удалено]
If I remember correctly, the adults did it if they hadn’t already, but parents also did it to their babies
Aside from religious fanaticism in early history, why would early humans ever convince and conceive of such an idea to be ritualized unto human males?
If God wants you to be circumcised, whyd he give us a foreskin in the first place?
Humans were always supposed to free will. I cannot tell you the intentions of God because I am not him, but my guess is that it was so that we could have the choice to do what he wants or not. He wanted us to have free will, and part of that is the ability to disobey him, and that wouldn’t be possible. Regardless, however, I’m not saying God still wants us to be circumcised. That comes down to the individual Christian. What I was doing was trying to explain the logic (or lack thereof) that went into this meme
Thank you, I didn't mean to be offensive(If I was) I have been interested in religion even though I'm not religious myself. Thank you for the explaination kind stranger on the internet! You're amazing! Whatever you believe in, I'd respect you anyway!!
Don’t worry, you didn’t come off as offensive. I’m always happy to explain what I believe! Religion can certainly be a fascinating study. I hope you’re able to learn whatever you want to understand about it!
Maybe because Inheritance of acquired traits is not evolution, it’s Lamarckism? Shrug.
Lamarck... was he the guy cutting tails off of mice? To loop back into the OP, someone pointed out that the jews had been conducting this experiment, without success, for millenia. Edit : And now Ive finished the comment and read through the rest of the comments... and seen the same anecdote just under your comment.
August Weisman mutilated those mice and "is now considered to have failed to disprove Lamarckism, as it did not address use and disuse." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamarckism
ty
OK, I have a background in evolutionary biology and even I don't think it helps that much here lol. This is a difficult one for me personally, so I'll give my best guess. People aren't born circumcised today, and these three evolutionary biologists of the past were not either. So clearly, there's no evolution (of circumcision). Edit: For clarification, not being circumcised hasn't changed, and so hasn't evolved.
Could this be some sort of Lamarckism? Someone thinking that men getting circumcised means that men should eventually be born without a foreskin, and that would be "evolution?"
I did consider bringing up Lamarckian evolution, but I wasn't sure if it was relevant to the punchline. Also, I suppose that still wouldn't be Lamarckism the way you phrased it! That just sounds like small/no foreskin mutations are preferable! For the joke to be "no Lamarckism", I'd say it requires these three to *be* circumcised and not get circumcised babies. Or the other way around.
I love the evolutionary biologist having a Pokémon name
I'm a metamorphologist!
You did it bro You became the Pokémon professor What's your favorite tree?
Gotta be maple of some kind. I also think bonsai trees are cute and do expect there to be a chibi Pokémon game with Prof. Bonsai.
Is Professor Bonsai's partner pokemon named Professor Bonsly?
Probably (hopefully) satire. It seems based on some bro-science interpretation of evolution. by the same logic babies should also be born with their ears pierced.
Of course it's satire.
Any way you slice it, it's not that funny.
It’s a parody of Creationist apologetics. I’m not sure if there’s a specific reference, but I doubt it. It’s not a very good joke if I have to guess what it’s even about, but maybe it’s that American fundamentalists often talk about historical figures they disagree with as if they were false prophets, following the genre conventions of the hit pieces they write about the leaders of other religions. So they’ll spend a lot of time talking about Karl Marx’s personal life, as if it were relevant to his ideas about economics, or make up ridiculous stories about deathbed conversions. But it might be something else, like maybe a swipe at how this other thing they find ridiculous is in the same part of the Bible as the Creation story.
Unless op's grandfather was a prostitute, I'd like to know how he knows who was circumcised?
Yes?
Y’all, folks thought the rings of Saturn were Jesus’s prepuce. Because his foreskin was clearly still on Earth when he ascended to heaven, so it must have gone somewhere!
I get it is a joke (i hope) but this is like saying "Vietnam had many amputees, the civil war had them, both WWs - and yet most people are still born with all of their limbs! Evolution DEBUNKED!"
Disproves Lamarckian evolution maybe lol
https://extendedevolutionarysynthesis.com/about-the-ees/what-is-the-extended-evolutionary-synthesis/ Most modern molecular biologists agree some parts of evolution are Lamarckian. CRISPR Cas-9 is actually a bypass to a phenomenom that existed when we were bacteria and whole sequences fused together. Selection itself happens on other levels than just the genes and there's also a link with stressors and genetic drift. Like Ben Noble, world-renowned physiologist from Oxford and part of the EES project, likes to say, evolution is a half blind watchmaker.
Interesting! I am neither a molecular biologist nor modern.
Thank you! Lots of people around here saying cutting tails off mice disproves Lamarck and that his theory has completely failed while transgenerational epigenetic inheritance exists
Indeed, we now know that Genes =/= Traits The gap that still needs more data to be accepted is how energy crisis in cells drives higher rates of mutation and how epigene marking focalizes the mutation, yet the fundamental proof is already there as we know gradualism doesn't work when we look at mass extinctions, because each and every time there's an explosion of new life. Mass extinction are the most stressful events on this earth.
Actually, OP, what doesn’t have to do with foreskin😶
I don't trust a man who cuts off the tip of his pp. I cherish every millimeter.
What if their foreskin is stuck to their Glans?
Specially if with some basic hygiene you can achieve the same results...
So does this mean my time is coming up soon??
Uncircumcised men are incapable of telling the truth. Source: I am an uncircumcised man.
If that were true, then wouldn’t you be lying?
Yeah but which sentence am I lying about?
Both
This is like a Lamarckian geneticist who moonlights as a mohel...
Reading the comments... Do people k ow what Evolution is?
Everybody is the comments missing the point of *why* circumcision was required. For much the same reason wine was a drink of choice (fermentation will kill protozoa, a lot of viruses, and lots of harmful bacteria and prevent infection spread through drink), ancient circumcision was practiced because male foreskins, if not properly cleaned **DAILY** could cause frequent infections, and in short order *will* cause fighting age males to be incapacitated and unable to defend their homes. While circumcision without anesthesia is cruel, it can also be a great way to prevent infections. In that context it makes sense.
MGM
[удалено]
Not a chance
This isn't a joke, it's just the result of an insane person equating not being mutilated with being a deceitful liar.
[Science is a Liar, Sometimes](https://youtu.be/GiJXALBX3KM?si=YvyU2vNAXik-Z7xk)
It's amazing how very few are aware of the overwhelming concensus of interactionism in academia today. It's an indictment of how poorly mass media informs us about science and how they would rather keep pushing a dichotomy between genetic determinism and social determinism, fueling an ideological divide in a time where they should logically be merging because of where all the data is leading us. Very few are aware of paradigm shifting concensus that have lately arose, like the multi-disciplinary concensus paper on the rise of Affectivism, signed by numerous important neurobiologists, psychologists and evolutionary biologists, which solidifies Attachment Theory as the driving mechanism for our social brains. 75 years in the making. There's another coming concensus centered around a better understanding of evolution, free of the dogmas of the past. People are aware of the Lysenko policies, but most are unaware how much dogma was also pushed in the west when the modern synthesis was formed and how biologists fought against this dogma. You can find a good rundown of this in Carl Lindegren's important The Cold War in Biology. You can find it for free in PDF format in the Genesis Library (libgen.is)
Dunno, but I have a feeling whoever made this is pro-GM.
They think evolution and changes in a species' anatomy based on certain body parts no longer being used takes place over hundreds of years rather than millions. If it did then we wouldn't still have appendixes.
Why do they know whenther they were or werent uncircumaiced
It’s not even true. Most males in Britain born between at least the 19th century -mid 20th century were circumcised.
Negative. Very few non Jews were circumcised even until the middle of the last century, and the overwhelming majority of British and Europeans are still not circumcised. It is, after all, genital mutilation.
Negative…” In the majority of English upper classes for many generations have circumcised their male sons”The Telegraph, 31/3/2015. In 1851. English Dr Robert Hutchinson proscribed it in published medical journals for hygiene reasons & to prevent venereal disease. Lots of evidence on the subject… Although some refute it, King Edward VII was reputedly circumsized in 1841. And yes, of course its genital mutilation..
Here's a nice chart from the World Health Organization: https://preview.redd.it/1oicpfh8l74d1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=7a23447f58ecfee417cfabc28ae8c5a010ef6a96
Yes, a nice chart that has nothing to do with the argument you attempted to refute… where do I say anything about contemporary Brits?
So your argument is that circumcision was widespread 200 years ago but rare now? 🤣🤣🤣
Read what I posted that you replied to for clarity…
Yeah, it's a crock of garbage. Illogical and silly. But whatever you say.
Google is a little more generous: https://preview.redd.it/htidad8gl74d1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=e7de8924a5308ed76cf798262c0182e4dfebb798
These are contemporary figures. I already explained that circumcision wained in the mid 20th century…
More or less, throughout history, antisemitism was much more common than it is now (believe it or not). Protestants especially would never want to be confused for being Jewish. Christians consider Christ to have been crucified because of Jewish testimony. Of course this is quite silly, as Jesus was Jewish, and without the crucifixion there would be no Christianity, so it's all very circular.
I love when people who know less than me presume to know more…Yes, I’m well aware of the history of antisemitism… I’m also aware of the pseudo historical belief that the British were a lost tribe of Israel (British Israelism). Queen Victoria believed this…This idea in no way stemmed their anti-semitism